Real-time earthquake monitor ·
USGS data
Japan maintains two major earthquake scenarios at the national level. The first is the Nankai Trough — a known subduction zone with a mapped fault, a historical rupture record, and a government-issued 70–80% probability. The second is the 首都直下地震 — the "earthquake directly below the capital." It has its own Cabinet Office study, its own death toll projection, its own probability figure. What it doesn't have is a single identifiable fault.
That distinction matters. With the Nankai Trough, Japan knows what it's waiting for. With the Tokyo directly-below earthquake, what exists is a probability attached to a city — and a planning framework built around what happens when the world's most densely populated metropolitan area absorbs a direct hit.
The Cabinet Office planning scenario is a magnitude 6.9 earthquake striking directly beneath central Tokyo — specifically, a fault rupture under the southern urban core. The 2013 Cabinet Office study, which remains the definitive planning document, produced figures that shaped Japan's entire capital disaster preparedness strategy.
The worst-case figure — 23,000 deaths — assumes the earthquake strikes at night in winter, when residents are in vulnerable wooden housing and wind conditions accelerate fire spread. Under better circumstances — a daytime event in calm weather — the same earthquake could kill a fraction of that number. The scenario's purpose is to plan for the worst, not to predict the most likely outcome.
A separate figure defines the economic dimension: 95 trillion yen in direct losses, equivalent to roughly $650 billion. Tokyo concentrates approximately one-third of Japan's GDP in a single metropolitan area. The financial district, government ministries, major ports, and rail interchange are all within the earthquake's projected damage zone simultaneously.
Shaking will not be Tokyo's primary killer. Fire will.
The 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake established this with brutal clarity. The M7.9 earthquake caused serious structural damage across the city — but it was the firestorms, ignited by ruptured gas lines and upended cooking fires, fed by wooden structures, and driven by typhoon-season winds, that killed an estimated 70,000 people in Tokyo alone. The simultaneous ignition of hundreds of fires overwhelmed firefighting capacity entirely. In some neighborhoods, residents who survived the initial shaking did not survive the fire.
A century later, the risk persists. Tokyo's eastern wards — Kōtō, Sumida, Arakawa, Edogawa — contain some of Japan's densest concentrations of pre-war and early post-war wooden housing. These 木造密集地域 (mokuzō misshū chiiki, or "densely built wooden areas") are designated in government hazard maps as zones of extreme fire risk. A large earthquake ruptures water mains simultaneously across the city — and without water pressure, firefighting in burning wooden neighborhoods becomes functionally impossible.
The Cabinet Office fire scenario projects more than 200,000 building fires igniting within hours of the earthquake under worst-case wind conditions. At that volume, Tokyo's fire services cannot contain them. The fires spread until they run out of fuel.
Tokyo's daytime population is roughly 15 million. On a weekday, approximately 3.5 million people are commuters from surrounding prefectures — and after a major earthquake, all rail services will stop simultaneously.
The 帰宅困難者 problem — "stranded commuters unable to return home" — is a recognized feature of Tokyo's disaster planning. In 2011, when the M9.0 Tōhoku earthquake sent strong shaking into the capital and halted train services, approximately 5 million people attempted to walk home simultaneously. Sidewalks became impassable. Convenience stores sold out of food and water within hours. Emergency services were overwhelmed not by casualties in Tokyo, but by the logistics of millions of people in motion simultaneously. And that was a scenario where the main rupture was 370 kilometers away.
In a direct-below earthquake, the government's guidance is explicit: do not try to walk home immediately. Shelter in place for at least three days. Companies above a certain employee threshold are legally required to stockpile three days of emergency food and water for their staff and to keep them on-site. The logic is straightforward — if 3.5 million people disperse simultaneously on foot through a city with broken roads, collapsed debris, and active fires, casualties multiply far beyond what the earthquake itself causes.
The Nankai Trough is a known fault. Seismologists can map it, date its previous ruptures, model its behavior, and design warning systems around its specific geometry. The 70–80% probability comes from centuries of documented rupture history.
The Tokyo directly-below earthquake is a fundamentally different problem. The Kantō region sits at the junction of three tectonic plates — the North American, Philippine Sea, and Pacific plates — and the fault systems under central Tokyo are numerous, overlapping, and not fully mapped. The M6.9 scenario is a planning tool, not a prediction. The actual earthquake could originate from a different fault, at a different depth, with a different magnitude. It could be M6.5 or M7.3. It could be centered under Shinjuku, under Tokyo Bay, or under the Tama hills to the west.
This uncertainty means there is no dedicated early warning system designed for this specific event the way there is for Nankai. Earthquake early warning (緊急地震速報) will still trigger — but because a directly-below earthquake strikes from shallow depth with minimal geographic separation from its source, residents at the epicenter may have seconds, not tens of seconds, before strong shaking arrives. There may be no warning at all.
Preparation has been extensive, if incomplete.
The Firebreak Roads program has progressively widened key streets through the most hazardous wooden-housing districts, creating corridors that interrupt fire spread and allow emergency vehicle access into otherwise impassable neighborhoods. Retrofitting subsidies have supported homeowners in older wooden districts to seismically reinforce their structures. Public buildings — schools, community centers, ward offices — have been upgraded to serve as evacuation shelters and supply distribution points.
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government's resilience planning addresses the economic and communications dimension: redundant power, stockpiled emergency supplies, backup communication infrastructure designed to function after the primary networks fail. The national government has designated the capital region's earthquake scenario as the country's highest-priority disaster preparedness investment — more than any natural disaster since the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake.
What remains structurally harder to solve is the concentration problem. There is no redundant Tokyo. The administrative center, financial center, and logistical hub of the country occupy the same geography as the earthquake's projected damage zone. Preparedness can reduce casualties and speed recovery — it cannot relocate the capital.
The Nankai Trough's 70–80% probability is unsettling precisely because it's specific — tied to a known fault, a known rupture history, a known geographic area. The Tokyo directly-below scenario carries a similar headline figure, but the underlying uncertainty is wider. The Kantō fault systems are less characterized. The historical record is sparser. The 1923 earthquake that devastated the city was significantly larger than the current planning scenario. The earthquake that strikes next could be too.
The Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923 is now more than a century in the past. The city it destroyed no longer exists — replaced by steel, concrete, and modern engineering. But the geology hasn't changed. The plates beneath Tokyo are still converging. The faults are still accumulating strain.
The government has a scenario. It has a death toll estimate. It has a probability. What it doesn't have — what no one has — is a date.